Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 5-1-f (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all laws be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all laws be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  The Court observes that the main issue of the present complaint relates to the fact that the court decision was sufficient for holding the applicant in custody for any period of time until his extradition had been made (see, mutatis mutandis, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 73, 11 October 2007, and Muminov, cited above, § 120).

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  Accordingly the applicant had no remedies deriving from that Convention by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 38124/07, § 58, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  As a general rule, if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if expelled, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it, or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 75, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  In cases such as the present, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicant to the receiving country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 108 in fine, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 21878/06

  Uganda, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Europäischer Gerichtshof für …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  The Court reiterates that it is in principle for the applicant to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts raised by it (see Nnyanzi v. the United Kingdom, no. 21878/06, § 53, 8 April 2008).
• KAG Freiburg, 10.12.2010 - 10/09

  Kostentragungspflicht der DCV als Dienstgeber für die durch die Teilnahme an …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  10/09/2010.
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, the materials at the Court's disposal do not indicate that the applicant belongs to any proscribed religious movement or any vulnerable group susceptible of being ill-treated in the requesting country; or that he or members of his family were previously persecuted or ill-treated in Uzbekistan (contrast Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 72, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  See by contrast, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Mamazhonov v. Russia no. 17239/13, § 141, 23 October 2014; and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008).".
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  In recent judgments concerning the same subject and covering the period after 2007 until recently, after having examined the latest available information, the Court has found that there was no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012).

• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  In Garayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 53688/08, § 72, 10 June 2010) the Court noted that the applicant's family had been either arrested or prosecuted in Uzbekistan, that their accounts of ill-treatment were mutually consistent and appeared to be credible, and that the applicant himself had been previously arrested and convicted in suspicious circumstances.
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]

  As regards the applicant's submission that he had already experienced ill-treatment at the hands of Tajikistani law enforcement officials, the Court observes that he did not adduce certain evidence, such as, for example, his relatives' statements, to support his submission Nonetheless, it considers that the applicant's account of events is consistent and detailed (see Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 72, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  It has found, with reference to material from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012, as well as, more recently, Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, § 135, 5 February 2013, and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 201, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  It has found, with reference to materials from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Factors relevant to this assessment of the "quality of law" - which are referred to in some cases as "safeguards against arbitrariness" - will include the existence of clear legal provisions for ordering detention, for extending detention, and for setting time-limits for detention (Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 135 and Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 99, 10 June 2010); and the existence of an effective remedy by which the applicant can contest the "lawfulness" and "length" of his continuing detention (Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 71, 27 July 2010).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  En se fondant sur diverses sources, tels des rapports des institutions des Nations unies et d'organisations non gouvernementales internationales, la Cour a relevé que la situation générale des droits de l'homme en Ouzbékistan était alarmante et qu'il y avait un problème sérieux et persistant de mauvais traitements de détenus - la pratique de torture des individus incarcérés étant décrite comme « systématique'et « inconsidérée'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mukhitdinov c. Russie, no 20999/14, § 52, 21 mai 2015, Fozil Nazarov, précité, § 34, Egamberdiyev, précité, § 47, Garayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 53688/08, § 71, 10 juin 2010).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  It has found, with reference to material from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate" (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov, cited above, §§ 93-96; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov, cited above, §§ 81 and 82; Rustamov, cited above, § 125; Abdulkhakov, cited above, § 141; Zokhidov, cited above, § 135; as well as, more recently, Ermakov, cited above, § 201; and Kasymakhunov, cited above, § 122).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10

  KISLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  CHANKAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  TERSHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33809/08

  LABSI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
• VG Münster, 11.08.2010 - 8 K 1401/10

  Kein Asyl für ein 2009 in Deutschland geborenes Kind mit libanesischen Eltern …
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 74759/13

  FOZIL NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38851/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 40755/16

  B.T. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 22636/13

  NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA